This. Also recently watched The Bourne Legacy which was surprisingly good (had very low expectations though) and Looper, which was IMO the best out of these four.

Yeah agree on those too. THe Bourne movie was much better than expected and I enjoyed Looper as well. But my fav out of those four would be End Of Watch. But I guess that has to do with personal reasons.

Avengers - basically a sequel.DKR - SequelSkyfall - possible considered a sequel? Set in the same universe at least as previous filmsIce Age - SequelTwilight - SequelSpider Man - RebootMadagascar 3 - sequelHunger Games - new adaptationMen in Black 3 - sequelBrave - new

And if the Hobbit jumps in there, it is in a similar place to Skyfall. Given the story is closely related to LotR.

So here is the question, does it bother you that movies seem to be very sequel orientated these days?

I think it bothers me, but in saying that I saw 4 of the sequels in the top 10 (and bought the Blu-Rays for Avengers and DKR). I also saw Expendables 2 and American Pie Reunion. I started off the year with Mission Impossible 4. I don't think I saw a film at the cinema this year that wasn't either a direct sequel type or a Skyfall/Avengers continuation of the same characters type. So, it can't be too much of a bother to me. I just worry that we are creating an atmosphere that stifles something new and exciting in place of either continuing the same thing or rebooting a film series that is not even that long since stagnated (Spiderman!). We also have another 2 X-Men films (A first class era one and another Wolverine one). All the Avenger's characters sequels and the like. I just worry that while the going is good, we are going to force Hollywood into a situation where they only want to make sequels etc and then when the sequels all turn to crap, we are left with nothing.

But if you go to http://www.imdb.com/chart/top you'll see that Skyfall isn't on the list while Argo is the fourth highest rated film of this year (after TDKR, The Hobbit and Avengers), yet based upon critics' reviews, Argo is rated higher than all of those on Metacritic.

Go to http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2012&p=.htm and in the top ten only two are new IPs and not a franchise film. One is Brave, which for the sake of argument could be said to be part of the Pixar franchise and not without an automatic fanbase. So that leaves only Ted, which has the MacFarlane Family Guy and American Dad fanbase pre-built in.

Only Ted, The Hunger Games and The Lorax have a budget under $100, with Ted being the only one significantly under that number, and definitely the only one which is possibly still under that if you include marketing, while the others will be approaching $200M.

Channing Tatum is the only theme of non franchise lower budget films in the top 20. And his $7M budgeted film is at number 21! And due to his exponentially increasing popularity (rumours are that GI Joe 2 is being re-shot to increase his screen time) his 'cheap' films will not exist past this year.

You have to look to number 24, Argo to find a moderately budgeted film without an inbuilt audience. The only films higher than it have Tatum, Denzel and Spielberg acting as the main draw.

All of that leads to the conclusion that if you want to make money in film, spend £/$100M+ and or make a kids film, or spend $5 million and make a horror/found footage film with which it's impossible to not make a profit.

Edit: Only 26 films have broken the 100M Barrier, and the majority are between 30M and 65M, so you can see why so few films are budgeted at that level - it's too risky.

All of that leads to the conclusion that if you want to make money in film, spend £/$100M+ and or make a kids film, or spend $5 million and make a horror/found footage film with which it's impossible to not make a profit..

The latter is the Steven Seagal model. With a low budget, writing, starring and directing as well as producing he manages to actually make a very healthy living despite not being at Hollywood.

Then again, Avengers made $1.25 billion profit. While that is only 7x the budget, with that much potential reward if you get it right, I can understand why they still make it.

Anyway, you gave nice analysis and reached a conclusion that I agree with. I'm basically discussing the exact same thing in the videogame thread actually, just realised that.

All of that leads to the conclusion that if you want to make money in film, spend £/$100M+ and or make a kids film, or spend $5 million and make a horror/found footage film with which it's impossible to not make a profit..

The latter is the Steven Seagal model. With a low budget, writing, starring and directing as well as producing he manages to actually make a very healthy living despite not being at Hollywood.

Then again, Avengers made $1.25 billion profit. While that is only 7x the budget, with that much potential reward if you get it right, I can understand why they still make it.

Anyway, you gave nice analysis and reached a conclusion that I agree with. I'm basically discussing the exact same thing in the videogame thread actually, just realised that.

It was the gaming which reminded me of what I wanted to post in this one once I got to a PC.The Avengers was always going to make a profit though. Whedon has a huge fanbase, the previous films did well too. The amount at the box office was no doubt a surprise though.At the other end of the scale, you have the two Taylor Kitsch films, Battleship and John Carter (of Mars!) which both had huge budgets and died at the box office.Also of note is the merchandise, Lucas made it with Star Wars and now Disney have perfected it so much that they've been able to buy Lucasfilm. Cars 2 made something over 500M in the cinema, but somewhere near 13bn in merchandising! Or, in other words, just one film from Pixar, the studio that Lucas sold years ago, has generated enough money to buy his own company off him and then some!

I'm a screaming Tarantino fangirl so this is probably a given but I am SO excited about Django Unchained.

Me too. But I doubt it will be as good as Inglorious basterds.. Opening scene in that movie with Landa is absolutely epic!

I've read a few reviews that have described it as a "return to form"... I loved Inglourious but it did seem to lose its way a little near the end and, in my opinion, had some pacing issues. Christoph Waltz was fabulous though and I'm so glad Tarantino's got him back. He has such charm about him.

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

I'm a screaming Tarantino fangirl so this is probably a given but I am SO excited about Django Unchained.

Me too. But I doubt it will be as good as Inglorious basterds.. Opening scene in that movie with Landa is absolutely epic!

I've read a few reviews that have described it as a "return to form"... I loved Inglourious but it did seem to lose its way a little near the end and, in my opinion, had some pacing issues. Christoph Waltz was fabulous though and I'm so glad Tarantino's got him back. He has such charm about him.

Actually, the ending was my favourite part of Inglourious because

Spoiler (click to show)

The film, as well as being a fantasy WW2 allied propaganda film when the soldiers successfully killed the leadership of the Third Reich, also looked in on itself - one moment the audience is feeling hate at the Nazis cheering a film where a Nazi soldier shoots American after America however at the next minute is then cheering on the American soldiers shooting the Nazis. It's similar to what the computer game Spec Ops: The Line did with regards to modern 'realistic' shooters.

I'm a screaming Tarantino fangirl so this is probably a given but I am SO excited about Django Unchained.

Me too. But I doubt it will be as good as Inglorious basterds.. Opening scene in that movie with Landa is absolutely epic!

I've read a few reviews that have described it as a "return to form"... I loved Inglourious but it did seem to lose its way a little near the end and, in my opinion, had some pacing issues. Christoph Waltz was fabulous though and I'm so glad Tarantino's got him back. He has such charm about him.

Actually, the ending was my favourite part of Inglourious because

Spoiler (click to show)

The film, as well as being a fantasy WW2 allied propaganda film when the soldiers successfully killed the leadership of the Third Reich, also looked in on itself - one moment the audience is feeling hate at the Nazis cheering a film where a Nazi soldier shoots American after America however at the next minute is then cheering on the American soldiers shooting the Nazis. It's similar to what the computer game Spec Ops: The Line did with regards to modern 'realistic' shooters.

I like your point, I just thought it got a bit too revengey (is that a word?) towards the end, I actually (and I hate having to admit this) feel sorry for Landa, I'm not sure if this was the intended effect or not. For me, it is a movie that is made by individual scenes, not an over-arching narrative. The introduction of the Bear Jew is one, the cafe scene where Shoshanna meets Landa again is another but my favourites are the interrogation scene that opens the film and the lead up to the bar shootout. The rest almost feels like "filler". I also think that the film is really made by the European actors (Waltz, Bruehl, Laurent etc.), the Hollywood actors like Pitt feel a bit shoehorned in and it starts to revolve around them more as the movie reaches its conclusion.

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

Interesting. I was quite underwhelmed with Skyfall. Saw the midnight screening with a few friends (I wanted to go as I'd never been to a midnight screening before) and it just didn't click with me as a Bond film. The antagonist seemed far too much to me like a Batman personality than a Bond character.

Casino Royale was brilliant.Quantum of Solace was terrible, i think. I can't remember it - it was that bad.Skyfall had its interesting moments, but lacked something that made it - to me - a James Bond great.

Interesting. I was quite underwhelmed with Skyfall. Saw the midnight screening with a few friends (I wanted to go as I'd never been to a midnight screening before) and it just didn't click with me as a Bond film. The antagonist seemed far too much to me like a Batman personality than a Bond character.

Casino Royale was brilliant.Quantum of Solace was terrible, i think. I can't remember it - it was that bad.Skyfall had its interesting moments, but lacked something that made it - to me - a James Bond great.

I agree completely! Critics and early reviewers claimed that it was better than Casino Royale. I think it was average by James Bond standards and the middle bit was achingly slow.

Interesting. I was quite underwhelmed with Skyfall. Saw the midnight screening with a few friends (I wanted to go as I'd never been to a midnight screening before) and it just didn't click with me as a Bond film. The antagonist seemed far too much to me like a Batman personality than a Bond character.

Casino Royale was brilliant.Quantum of Solace was terrible, i think. I can't remember it - it was that bad.Skyfall had its interesting moments, but lacked something that made it - to me - a James Bond great.

I agree with Toby.If the film wasnt a Bond film, I'd have been more impressed with it. It just didn't feel like a Bond film at all, so it left me a bit like "Hmmmm... not sure if serious"

Still a good film though, I did enjoy it. The antagonist was actually very good, I loved his intro scene.

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

This week I watched the following films (not really new, but I watched them!)

How to Train Your DragonI was rather skeptical as some of the animated films can be a bit tedious and generic. But I really enjoyed this and actually felt something towards the dragon protagonist, I kinda liked him and wanted a pet of him. His effort at smiling was funny, as was his general bonding with Hiccup the Viking, and his fire-ball attack thing is pretty awesome. The film was funny and had plenty of action and entertainment for all ages I would say. As ever, the animation was top notch from Dreamworks.

The Bourne LegacyA nice Christmas present to watch, with two of my favourite actors in Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz. High octane entertainment which follows on very well from the previous three Bourne films and sets up well for future films. Although it was a little confusing in places, I think the way they've worked the Bourne adventures into a widespread problem for US agencies is interesting and effective, and Renner carried out his role very well. Rachel Weisz was good as well. I think I need to rewatch it though before saying it's great, as I did miss a bit due to festive people speaking over it and giving me chocolate.

Halo 4: Forward Unto DawnNot really a film, but a web series of 5 15 minute live action pieces, but I watched it all in one go anyway. As a Halo fan, I enjoyed it, and think it bodes well for a full on Halo film. I enjoyed the backstory to the main character, and I enjoyed the hints at various aspects of the wider franchise. Also I thought the way the young UNSC cadets found classified information and found the first "picture" of the alien threat and Spartans was good, as both were unknown to the characters, but well recognised by the audience (if you know Halo anyway). The action was very good and I liked the way that the enemies were more often than not shrouded in dust clouds or darkness, silhouettes most of the time. It added a sinister effect to the Covenant. Biggest disappointment though was the Master Chief having a different voice. This upset me.

BattleshipFail of a film. I'm all for bad sci-fi films, I liked AVP, and can handle a certain amount of cheese and plot holes, and lack of realism. But this took the biscuit for me. The ideas were moronic to say the least. The aliens travelled across the galaxy all the way to Earth, passing many dangerous obstacles in the galactic void no doubt, yet their ships collide with a tiny satellite in Earth's orbit, and their entire communications array is destroyed, crashing into Honk Kong/China/somewhere. They don't have shields, and no other form of communication on any other ship? Then went night falls in the film, apparently neither alien nor human ship can see each other for some apparent reason. Maybe I missed something, maybe infrared or thermal or any other kind of imaging equipment were knocked out at some point, but I find it hard to believe that at night, neither alien nor human can see one another. It felt like a contrived effort just to make the whole 'grid of bouys' firing blindly to try and tie the film in with the board game it supposedly stems from. It was kind of stupid. The alien design was good until they took their helmets off, at which point I wondered why the troll had stuck a porcupine on it's chin. Then there's the case of aged battleship versus advanced spare-faring aliens, and the latter coming off worse. Sure, a bit of underdog success story is usually good, but not in this case. It just didn't work.Funnily enough the best bit for me is the fact that Rihanna isn't as bad an actress as I would have expected. That was a surprise.

I have the film Limitless to watch in the coming days, the girlfriend seems to think I'll enjoy it because I'm a writer. We'll see!

_________________"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."

Interesting. I was quite underwhelmed with Skyfall. Saw the midnight screening with a few friends (I wanted to go as I'd never been to a midnight screening before) and it just didn't click with me as a Bond film. The antagonist seemed far too much to me like a Batman personality than a Bond character.

Casino Royale was brilliant.Quantum of Solace was terrible, i think. I can't remember it - it was that bad.Skyfall had its interesting moments, but lacked something that made it - to me - a James Bond great.

Here in Oz, Channel 7 have been replaying all the Bond movies, in order, from the very first one &, being a huge Daniel Craig fan, I recorded Casino Royale (even though I had seen it before) & Quantum of Solace (which I hadn't seen). I thoroughly enjoyed watching Casino Royale again & I really liked Quantum of Solace even though I had heard plenty of people saying, like Toby, that they didn't like it. As Quantum of Solace is really a sequel to Casino Royale rather than a standalone Bond film, I am thinking that maybe I liked it because I watched one straight after the other & Quantum of Solace made more sense than if I had watched them totally separately &, say, a year apart. Just a thought. The only disappointment I found in Quantum of Solace was that Danel Craig didn't take his shirt off . Anyway, I will be interested to see what Skyfall is like as all the clips & specials I have seen make it look rather interesting.

Here in Oz, Channel 7 have been replaying all the Bond movies, in order, from the very first one &, being a huge Daniel Craig fan, I recorded Casino Royale (even though I had seen it before) & Quantum of Solace (which I hadn't seen). I thoroughly enjoyed watching Casino Royale again & I really liked Quantum of Solace even though I had heard plenty of people saying, like Toby, that they didn't like it. As Quantum of Solace is really a sequel to Casino Royale rather than a standalone Bond film, I am thinking that maybe I liked it because I watched one straight after the other & Quantum of Solace made more sense than if I had watched them totally separately &, say, a year apart. Just a thought. The only disappointment I found in Quantum of Solace was that Danel Craig didn't take his shirt off . Anyway, I will be interested to see what Skyfall is like as all the clips & specials I have seen make it look rather interesting.

You're wrong about the bold bit. There are two clips in the trailer at 1.28 & 1.34http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1klscL-tFGUThough I worry that that's your only disappointment.That you forgot that indicates how utterly bad the film is - you wiped it from your memory There are some reasons for it being bad, such as being filmed around the writers' strike. I think it's of a quality which without its history would otherwise have killed the franchise if it was the first instalment, such as The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or John Carter et al. Or perhaps forced a re-boot such as the Batman or Spider-Man films.

The Bourne Legacy: Didn't really enjoy this to be honest. It was good action wise but I thought the actual story was a bit boring to be honest, the ending wasn't particularly good as well... Can't say much more besides that the bourne films really lost their appeal with the third one anyway. 7/10

The Amazing Spiderman: Thought the lead actor was awful to be honest, the story line was better that the other ones and thought the enemy was good in this. Also liked the small changes in it. 6/10

End of Watch: Brilliant film, it was good how they filmed it as well, mixture of the police camera and proper camera. Jake Gyllenhaal was great as well and the ending was top class, unexpected to be honest. 9/10.

Taken 2: I was looking forward to this but was disappointed when I actually watched it. Liam Neeson played a good part again but I thought it the daughter and mother were awful, the daughter couldn't really act in the first one but she wasn't present much in it. However she has more of a lead role in this one and just becomes annoying really badly. The storyline wasn't that great as well. The action bits made up for it. The film however had nothing on Taken. 6/10.

Interesting. I was quite underwhelmed with Skyfall. Saw the midnight screening with a few friends (I wanted to go as I'd never been to a midnight screening before) and it just didn't click with me as a Bond film. The antagonist seemed far too much to me like a Batman personality than a Bond character.

Casino Royale was brilliant.Quantum of Solace was terrible, i think. I can't remember it - it was that bad.Skyfall had its interesting moments, but lacked something that made it - to me - a James Bond great.

I agree with Toby.If the film wasnt a Bond film, I'd have been more impressed with it. It just didn't feel like a Bond film at all, so it left me a bit like "Hmmmm... not sure if serious"

Still a good film though, I did enjoy it. The antagonist was actually very good, I loved his intro scene.

After all the praise, and with Sam Mendes at the helm, I had high hopes for Skyfall. Indeed, the pre intro credits sequence is one of the best from any Bond films, if not the best, and the character development of Bond was excellent as well (the controversial "Bond drinking beer" scene made sense even if it hadn't been product placement)

I also liked the way they 'rebooted' it to the traditional franchise at the end of the film. However, the overall plot of the film made no sense and was full of cliches. It was entertaining and fun to watch, but falls apart under even a hint of scrutiny.

I suppose I should spoiler tag what I am going to say just in case there are people out there who haven't seen it yet and don't want it spoiled.

Spoiler (click to show)

Bad guy who has a computer system that can make anything happen over the Internet? Check!

Bad guy deliberately gets himself captured to put himself in the heart of the good guys lair and then has some method of escape that even the most dim witted TSA official would have suspected? Check!

Abrupt and uncuddly bureaucrat from start of film actually turns out to be sympathetic and helpful to main character's plan at the critical point that it seems he's going to unravel it all? Check!

The bit at the end, which I had seen some critics say was a role reversal of Bond storming the bad guy's HQ, played at best a rip off of Bourne and at worst a rip off of Home Alone. And describing it ripping off Bourne as being the 'at best' scenario is not really a positive comment given that Jason Bourne (and similar characters like Jack Bauer) traditionally pay homage to James Bond (hence why they all have the initials JB)

Just how did he sneak an attack helicopter and a small army of henchmen into Scotland exactly? It's one thing when these things pop up in the middle of the Asian supercontinent where borders are large and undefendable, but Scotland is at the most remote part of densely populated island at the furthest point of one of the most civilised and peaceful political areas on the planet.

And can two calor gas cannisters make an entire stone mansion explode like it was packed with C4? Maybe if he had pre rigged the whole place with additional cannisters so it caused a chain reaction, but exploding barrels don't even do that much damage in video game physics.

Back tracking a bit, the bad guy's HQ on some derelict city that he had somehow got everyone to abandon but no one had thought to check up on (and the CIA hadn't even considered occasionally checking with a satellite after that weird event that got everyone to leave in a hurry) as a location was very jarring in tone with the rest of the film. Video game physics and video game respawning henchmen aside, the Daniel Craig films (particularly Skyfall in it's Bourne/Dark Knight inspired tone) have attempted to come across as feeling "realistic" yet that whole sequence of the film wouldn't have felt out of place with zombies.

I could go on, but compared to this it would be nit picking. I enjoyed the film in the same way I enjoyed a rollercoaster ride, but it certainly required watching with the brain turned off, and that is implying that a typical Bond film requires the brain to be turned on on the first place. I will also point out that if I was analysing a Roger Moore James Bond film (which I do consider to be worse than Skyfall) I would not be criticising it for a lack of realism, but that's because Roger Moore's Bond films were meant to be taken tongue in cheek, hence their tone, whereas the Craig Bond films are (meant to be) towards the other end of the spectrum.

Oh, and do we really believe that there was a tube train running at mid day without any passengers on board?

Here in Oz, Channel 7 have been replaying all the Bond movies, in order, from the very first one &, being a huge Daniel Craig fan, I recorded Casino Royale (even though I had seen it before) & Quantum of Solace (which I hadn't seen). I thoroughly enjoyed watching Casino Royale again & I really liked Quantum of Solace even though I had heard plenty of people saying, like Toby, that they didn't like it. As Quantum of Solace is really a sequel to Casino Royale rather than a standalone Bond film, I am thinking that maybe I liked it because I watched one straight after the other & Quantum of Solace made more sense than if I had watched them totally separately &, say, a year apart. Just a thought. The only disappointment I found in Quantum of Solace was that Danel Craig didn't take his shirt off . Anyway, I will be interested to see what Skyfall is like as all the clips & specials I have seen make it look rather interesting.

You're wrong about the bold bit. There are two clips in the trailer at 1.28 & 1.34http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1klscL-tFGUThough I worry that that's your only disappointment.That you forgot that indicates how utterly bad the film is - you wiped it from your memory There are some reasons for it being bad, such as being filmed around the writers' strike. I think it's of a quality which without its history would otherwise have killed the franchise if it was the first instalment, such as The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or John Carter et al. Or perhaps forced a re-boot such as the Batman or Spider-Man films.

Oops , maybe you're right although I was thinking more along the lines of the scene in Casino Royale of Bond coming out of the sea in his swimming trunks. Gives me goosebumps every time I see it . I don't think that Quantum of Solace is a great film, it just wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be after all the negative comments I had heard

It's New Years Eve & I am sitting at home here in North Sydney just waiting to see the fireworks & watching Graham Norton's New Year's Eve Special with special guest Tom Cruise. Of course Tom Cruise is on promoting his latest movie. I dislike this guy so much I haven't watched one of his movie's since the first Mission Impossible movie. One of the reasons being the way he treated our Nicole when he suddenly divorced her without telling her why but also because I just don't find him that great of an actor. Add crazy behaviour since then & I haven't wanted to watch any of his movies recently. I've just edited this as I am now watching Hugh Jackson & Billy Crystal, also promoting their latest movies, plus English comedian, John Bishop, whose face I knew long before his name but he also does a lot of physical challenges for charity, & they are much more entertaining & also less pretentious. I guess what I am asking is, does anyone here like Tom Cruise & his movies - agree, disagree & why! Edited again because, as with all Graham Norton shows, he has a final musical act. Tonight it's Pink. Talk about a superstar without any pretensions....

It's New Years Eve & I am sitting at home here in North Sydney just waiting to see the fireworks & watching Graham Norton's New Year's Eve Special with special guest Tom Cruise. Of course Tom Cruise is on promoting his latest movie. I dislike this guy so much I haven't watched one of his movie's since the first Mission Impossible movie. One of the reasons being the way he treated our Nicole when he suddenly divorced her without telling her why but also because I just don't find him that great of an actor. Add crazy behaviour since then & I haven't wanted to watch any of his movies recently. I guess what I am asking is, does anyone here agree, disagree & why!

I disagree.

I don't like Scientology in general, but he doesn't turn up to premiers saying we should convert. Stuff going on within people's marriages is their own business, and Kidman seems to be the one who has found true love anyway. Crazy behaviour? Who hasn't done something silly because they are in that super happy zone when you first start going out with someone? Most of us don't end up on TV, but still. And frankly, none of this stuff bothers me.

As for Tom Cruise's movies, this is where I really disagree.

Risky BusinessTop GunCocktailRainmanBorn on the Fourth of JulyA Few Good MenThe FirmInterview with a VampireMission ImpossibleJerry MaguireEye's Wide ShutMagnoliaMission: Impossible IIVanilla SkyMinority ReportLast SamuraiCollateralWar of the WorldsMission: Impossible 3Lions for LambsValkyrieKnight and DayMission: Impossible - Ghost ProtocolRock of Ages

Most of these are, at worst, watchable. And some of these are great films. And while the Top Gun - A Few Good Men era is his best, most of the rest have been pretty good too. Top Gun is my favourite, then A few Good Men, then Jerry Macguire.

That said, I have some serious man-love for Tom Cruise. Last new year when very, very drunk my attempt to get fired into the only single girl at the party was to talk about why Tom Cruise is the man.... for two hours...

his performance in Tropic Thunder is absolutely out of this world. Should've got an Oscar for that.

watched Dictator yesterday. Very good movie and nice speech about 'what you could have in America if you had dictatorship'.

_________________We are worse than animals, we hunger for the killWe put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the willWe kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damnedWe are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man

It's New Years Eve & I am sitting at home here in North Sydney just waiting to see the fireworks & watching Graham Norton's New Year's Eve Special with special guest Tom Cruise. Of course Tom Cruise is on promoting his latest movie. I dislike this guy so much I haven't watched one of his movie's since the first Mission Impossible movie. One of the reasons being the way he treated our Nicole when he suddenly divorced her without telling her why but also because I just don't find him that great of an actor. Add crazy behaviour since then & I haven't wanted to watch any of his movies recently. I guess what I am asking is, does anyone here agree, disagree & why!

I disagree.

I don't like Scientology in general, but he doesn't turn up to premiers saying we should convert. Stuff going on within people's marriages is their own business, and Kidman seems to be the one who has found true love anyway. Crazy behaviour? Who hasn't done something silly because they are in that super happy zone when you first start going out with someone? Most of us don't end up on TV, but still. And frankly, none of this stuff bothers me.

As for Tom Cruise's movies, this is where I really disagree.

Risky BusinessTop GunCocktailRainmanBorn on the Fourth of JulyA Few Good MenThe FirmInterview with a VampireMission ImpossibleJerry MaguireEye's Wide ShutMagnoliaMission: Impossible IIVanilla SkyMinority ReportLast SamuraiCollateralWar of the WorldsMission: Impossible 3Lions for LambsValkyrieKnight and DayMission: Impossible - Ghost ProtocolRock of Ages

Most of these are, at worst, watchable. And some of these are great films. And while the Top Gun - A Few Good Men era is his best, most of the rest have been pretty good too. Top Gun is my favourite, then A few Good Men, then Jerry Macguire.

That said, I have some serious man-love for Tom Cruise. Last new year when very, very drunk my attempt to get fired into the only single girl at the party was to talk about why Tom Cruise is the man.... for two hours...

How could you forget Days of Thunder (or as I like to call it, Top Gun with cars)?

_________________"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea."

Watched Lawless last night and to be honest it was an really good film. Enjoyed it all the way through really and it had a really good storyline. Shia Le Bouf and Tom Hardy played there roles excellently and had some unexpected twists in it. Could be a little bit slow at times but it had the action needed in it.

Watched Lawless last night and to be honest it was an really good film. Enjoyed it all the way through really and it had a really good storyline. Shia Le Bouf and Tom Hardy played there roles excellently and had some unexpected twists in it. Could be a little bit slow at times but it had the action needed in it.

9/10.

I enjoyed it, but not 9/10 for me. In any case I really liked Hardy, I think he is turning out to be a very cool actor.

Read the book a while ago and now watched the film. I liked it but the books was better. McGregors london accent is less than convincing and that really grated on me at times during the film Brosnan plays his part well and the supporting actors are all reasonably good at least but there is no standout performance from anyone and thus the film seemed well written but slightly poorly put together.

Read the book a while ago and now watched the film. I liked it but the books was better. McGregors london accent is less than convincing and that really grated on me at times during the film Brosnan plays his part well and the supporting actors are all reasonably good at least but there is no standout performance from anyone and thus the film seemed well written but slightly poorly put together.

Saw Skyfall today. Massively overhyped. Basically Goldeneye with the plot of the first Mission:Impossible film to replace the EMP threat.

The debate about the use of MI6 is amusing as well because:

Spoiler (click to show)

MI6 suffer a remote crack by a computer genius who blows up MI6. They don't fire the guy who thought remote access to a gas supply regulator was a good idea. They also don't fire the guy who designed the supposedly military grade firewall that gets cracked on two different machines in two different locations. Instead, they make him point man when it comes to taking a look in the bad guy's laptop. Then allowing a second crack to occur after listening to an agent with no IT experience at all, and compromising security on the second MI6 location in 3 months, which directly results in the death of two agents, and the escape of a high profile target, and the guy is still around, and not being watched closely enough to be able to conduct illicit information drops later on that week.That's even before we consider the legal ramifications of sending an operative not fit for duty into a volatile situation with no ground support, and the complete uselessness of an intelligence agency that doesn't see fit to keep tabs on 00 agents that quit, especially considering their knowledge of declassified operations, security protocol in MI6 and a bunch of other national security concerns. They also can't fill their poison capsules properly (Hydrogen cyanide stops respiration, it doesn't destroy your cells and leave you horribly disfigured).And given how Alec Treveylan/Janus/006 screwed over M in Goldeneye, you'd think they'd have more sense to cancel rogue 00 agents. There's form for the entire bloody film if only they went back and read their case files.

I think Schindlers List is a bit of a special case. It's one of those films everyone should see even if they're not movie fans. I saw that in the cinema when it first came out and and that's the only time I have seen an entire movie audience sit through the credits of a film in my life.